See DeAngelis v. Hill, 847 A.2d 1261, 1267-68 (N.J. 2004). These
elements of a defamation claim in New Jersey are similar to the elements
listed in the general Defamation Law section, with the following exceptions:

Public and Private Figures

New Jersey follows the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rosenblatt v. Baer,
383 U.S. 75 (1966), in determining who is a public official for
purposes of defamation law. Under this test, the public official
designation applies to "those among the hierarchy of government
employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial
responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental
affairs.” Costello v. Ocean County Observer, 643 A.2d 1012, 1021 (N.J.
1994) (quoting Baer). Reading this test expansively, New Jersey courts
have consistently held that police officers are public officials. Other
examples of public officials include a former school district athletic
director, a tax assessor, a building inspector, an incumbent mayor.

New Jersey courts have a two-part test for deciding who is a
limited-purpose public figure. First, the defamatory statement must
involve a public controversy, namely a real dispute with an outcome
that “affects the general public or some segment of it.” See McDowell
v. Paiewonsky, 769 F.2d 942, 948 (3d Cir. 1985). Second, the court must
consider “the nature and extent of plaintiff's involvement in that
controversy.” See McDowell, 769 F.2d at 948. The following individuals,
among others, have been held to be limited-purpose public figures in
New Jersey:

A candidate for a condominium board of directors, because his
candidacy thrust him into the public eye, see Gulrajaney v. Petricha,
885 A.2d 496, 505 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005);

A lawyer representing the New Jersey School Boards
Association, at a time when the association's insurance problems
generated widespread and justifiable media attention, see Schwartz v.
Worrall Publ'ns, 610 A.2d 425, 428-29 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992);
and

Land use applicants, because their construction project were
fairly and reasonably the subject of public interest, see LoBiondo v.
Schwartz, 733 A.2d 516, 526 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999).

Actual Malice and Negligence

When a private figure plaintiff sues for defamation over
statements of purely private concern (i.e., not related to a matter of
legitimate public concern), New Jersey courts require the plaintiff to
show that the defendant was at least negligent. In cases involving
matters of legitimate public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements
were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. Public officials,
all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures also
must prove actual malice. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on the standards and terminology mentioned in this subsection.

In addition, New Jersey statutes recognize a privilege for cable
television broadcasters who complying with their obligations under any
State or Federal law, regulation, or policy requiring that broadcast
services be made available to members of the public. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:5A-50.

The fair report privilege protects republishing “reports of
defamatory statements made in judicial and other official proceedings,”
in the interest that information from official proceedings be made
available to the public. Costello v. Ocean County Observer, 643 A.2d
1012, 1018 (N.J. 1994). The report need not be “exact in every
immaterial detail”, only “substantially correct.” However, a publisher
who omits exculpatory language from the official report and thereby
conveys an erroneous impression will lose the privilege.

For example, the privilege will cover the publication of
official statements regarding police investigations, issued by police
department heads and county prosecutors, unless the plaintiff can prove
actual malice in the publication. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:43-1.

Neutral Reportage Privilege

New Jersey courts do not recognize a neutral reportage
privilege. However, the extensive protections available under the New
Jersey fair report privilege are analogous to a neutral reportage
privilege. See Costello, 643 A.2d at 1028 (N.J. 1994) (O'Hern, J.,
concurring).

Statute of Limitations for Defamation

New Jersey has a one (1) year statute of limitations for defamation. See N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3.

New Jersey courts have adopted the single publication rule.
Barres v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 378 A.2d 1148, 1151 (N.J.
1977). For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section.

A New Jersey Superior Court has held that the single publication
rule applies to Internet publications. See Churchill v. State, 876 A.2d
311, 319 (N.J. Super. Ct. App .Div. 2005). If other New Jersey courts
follow the Churchill case, the statute of limitations should run from
the date of first posting, unless more than merely technical changes
are made to the website, triggering “republication.”

Did you find what you are looking for?

Need legal help?

Disclaimer

Information in this guide is based on general principles of law and is intended for information purposes only; we make no claim as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information. It is not offered for the purpose of providing individualized legal advice. Use of this guide does not create an attorney-client or any other relationship between the user and the Digital Media Law Project or the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

Navigation

Copyright 2007-13 Digital Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.